Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 20, 2011 9:00am-9:30am PDT

9:00 am
on the calendar, for the information item, number 11, this is the request for a discretionary review. this has been withdrawn. this is for your consideration. also on this calendar, 45 lambry street. the continuance for april 14, 2011. the two parties are here and may want to speak to it. you may not take your action until 1:30. with that, commissioners, i will announce the possibility you will continue your last item.
9:01 am
this is case 2007.0903. teasure island redevelopment project. you may not continue this until 6:00. with that, commissioners. they are announcing. >> that is proposed for continuance. >> we have to come back at 6:00. >> commissioners, you can discus s this. if, for instance, there is a break. this is for the city attorney. you take a break and if the commission does happen -- this
9:02 am
item will be announced for possible continuance. if no one asks about this, this is all of the calendar. >> commissioner moore? >> we will continue item one, 17thand folsom -- 17th and folsom, to the date specified. >> they have requested not to take the action to 1:30. and for item 14. so both of those, you take up at the 1:30 calendar. >> we request to discuss this now. >> that is correct. >> so if there are members of the public. >> items for continuance, now is the time to do it.
9:03 am
>> i would like to clarify one statement. there was a request for the continuance, on item number 14. that this item would not be opposed to. this was a continuance from the hearing for today, not specific to april 14. we would like to discuss the potential for continuing this earlier than april 14. >> this is in reference to 17th and folsom. we are looking to this item. >> this is the day. >> i did not realize.
9:04 am
there is no earlier time on the calendar. we could not possibly but this in any other time than that. >> and again, if this is not appropriate for me to talk about this right now, i will wait until 1:30. but this is an item that has historically had very short hearing. this is the historical modification of a project. each of the commissioners, has at one time or another had to deal with this. we have a procedural question. i do not know that there is a significant substance issue. i would ask that space be made on the calendar.
9:05 am
>> this is my only chance and i will use it. next week as a full calendar. and on the seventh, this is also very fall. -- full. this is something my clients want to talk about. and this is provided by a continuance, being used by people who are very active in this process. they are very active. they are predating every commission. i believe that commissioner antonia was here on the early hearings. there is a substantial number of people who have interest in
9:06 am
this. this is substantial. thank you. >> public comment is closed. >> it is appropriate to comment at this time, obviously interested in accommodating -- and anyone with an interest in commenting on this could have done so today. i will be supportive of what the other commissioners believe is appropriate for the continuance, and i feel that the issue is very clear cut. we cannot be voting on this right now. of course. >> commissioner? >> we have agreed to a
9:07 am
continuance. it sounds like some things have changed on the calendar. this is a project that most of us are quite familiar with. in my view, this feels like a better outcome. a lot of people have been very involved. and i have not gotten the sense that there are a lot of people in this project. this does not give me the thought that the hearing would be particularly long. we keep having situations where things come off of the calendar.
9:08 am
maybe we can get rid of things. april is filling up, and so i would prefer not to overload that day and this is my birthday. i do not want to be here the whole day. >> the only question is the day to continue this. >> you cannot vote right now. the only question is about which day. the calendar next week is not as full as was at a lot of projects have been moved. there is a 6:00 in on the housing element, and we would see if we would get to the other items before 6:00.
9:09 am
>> you would give me a little bit of time for that. >> i will be able to answer the questions. >> is this the time to be talking about this or will we have another chance? >> commissioner? >> i would be supportive, if the calendar permits, to move this forward to the 21st. this would work for me but we will see what ms. avery comes up with. >> and the city attorney was wanting to weigh in. the challenging of the calendar, based on the procedural votes, giving us a perspective on this.
9:10 am
>> commissioners, if these parties have agreed to a continuance, i think that there was a dispute about the procedures and the administrative code was involved with the preparation of this, and if not, the repercussion, if he was permitted to hear that item. this condition -- this includes procedures for the department, or any individual or organization that commented on the document. i understand that this did not take place at the same time that the document went to the commission last week.
9:11 am
the addendum was available in the public file. this was at the same time that you received this. this section does not contain a time -- the advance time that this needs to be mailed. as i understand this from the staff, this is within the discretion of the commission, if they want to continue this item. you can take all the factors into account and we can elaborate more, and you can either continue this or not, -- >> thank you. >> i will just add to this. the normal practice has been to
9:12 am
meld these out like we do with the other information. this did not happen all this was available online. this is not necessarily -- this is not determined how far in advance this will have to go out. this has to go out a week in advance. >> commissioner? >> the only thing i would like to say -- these drawings are not eligible. the nature does not allow you to do this in a matter where you can see this very well. this is a technical problem that people have at other times but this is the nature of the beast. you can run these down in the department.
9:13 am
this makes it somewhat legible. but this is not as readable as some people would like for this could be. >> we will go on to the next item. >> we will revisit these proposed continuances. this is commissioners questions and matters. item #2 is the adopted draft minutes, from the regular meeting of february 3 and february 10. following public comment and any modifications, do you adopt the draft minutes? >> is there any public comment on these minutes? public comment is closed.
9:14 am
>> i move this for the third in the afternoon of the tent. >> we have the doubt -- the adoption of the draft minutes, with a meeting scheduled february 10. [reading roll] >> aye. the minutes are adopted. item three on the calendar this week to discuss your rules and regulations. you had some issues you were wanting to discuss, amendments to the public request and the submission of documents. to consider establishing parameters for the public
9:15 am
hearing in any other parts of the rules and regulations if you want to add something. you have identified what you want to modify, and i will go back and draft these modifications or amendments for the document, to adopt or not. i have given each of you a copy of the rules and regulations, i have provided a copy to the public, and the matter is before you. >> commissioner? >> in regard to the issue and the request from the public -- we should probably discuss this
9:16 am
and make certain that this is codified in regard to what the rules are going to be. i am not certain i am supportive of this because of the possibility that this group of people would prepare their arguments to have the same effect of giving one person 10 or 50 minutes to speak. but the commission feels that they will continue the practice -- i think that we need some clear directions and the request has to come in a timely manner, and everyone will know when they need to make the request so we do not have situations where people say, this group got this privilege and we should have this. and i would think, in advance,
9:17 am
to the commission president, i could certainly go either way. i want to make certain that this is made clear to the public. >> we will wait until the end to speak. but my experience as the chair, they do always have the request several days in advance. and the issue became controversial around the department hearing. most members of the public were not aware that this rule existed. there are certain rules pertaining to the public and we should have been made available here when people come in to the
9:18 am
web site. and people know about their rights as a group. the practice over the last couple of years, this was something i was not clear on. this was in terms of the opposition. and this is the practice of the commission, to submit a request for the terminal block of time. and i agree that if we continue on this practice, we have to have this set up, if we want these groups that are in opposition to the project, that would be allowed to have 10 minutes to speak. or if this would be something that would be open to everyone,
9:19 am
and this was never the intention of the rule to begin with. and also that this be made available to the public, so they know they have the opportunity to request these blocks of time. but one thing that we can control, although we want the individuals to limit the group's presentation to that 10 minutes, we will not be able to limit others from speaking outside of those 10 minutes. and if you are in the coalition to say public health, we cannot limit any individual from speaking. i believe this is part of the brown act. there is no way to prevent people from speaking, if they
9:20 am
desire to speak for 10 minutes. i am hoping, either way. to whatever the other commissioners prefer to see. i would like to make the request that if we decide to keep these minutes, with one individual speaking -- i think this is what led to this negative response on a couple of occasions, speaking on behalf of the 800-member organization. it seemed like one person going on for 10 minutes. i am open to whatever people want. commissioner? >> with this new information, we originally requested to have all
9:21 am
of these members. we have the organization name, but we cannot even really hold them to this. maybe we could have a practice where people try to work together anyway, and we cannot have people submit 50 speaking cards. many people ask if they can defer the time to someone else and people with better coordinate things. if there was a way to say, three cards or four cards, this would be 12 minutes. you could put these in together, and then you organize your presentation. the members of the public, it is more worthwhile for them to take their time and be more strategic in how they use this.
9:22 am
we have a lot of people testify, a few people make substantive points. and other people who pylon. having people turn in four parts together, where people can plan out what they will say, hopefully the people following them would go with one of the other points. this would provide 12 minutes, basically, -- >> and reconstruct the public to do this. >> i am trying to think of another way -- >> it almost feels that we should keep this the way that this. the point of this is to make a cohesive argument. i think that the challenges, the
9:23 am
hearing is off or -- also very long and redundant. and not necessarily to the point. adding a new dialogue to the discussion. this is where i struggle with this. if i have to make a choice, it would be for people in opposition to the project. we would name as the opposition, people of a point of view for the housing element. the people who want to speak. these people wanted to bring to light new points. to frame this in this way. this is how the project sponsors get a block of time.
9:24 am
the idea was that the other side should be able to talk about what they do not like about the project. >> this is a very positive thought that you are expressing. president olague -- you are reminding people to use this wisely, or collective for the specific lot of time. this is a civil discourse, and there is the reminder. you touched on this, and we have not taken us away. but we suspect the process -- if you have chosen a leader to speak for you, i like the idea
9:25 am
of a proactive, positive way of conducting the dialogue. president olague used this and i appreciate it. commissioner miguel: i would like to do away with this block of time. the problems with managing this, from the standpoint of the president, this is onerous and there are other things in the rules and regulations. we should discuss this rather than just that. speaking on all of this, and this is in the appendix. if you look at the appendix, if
9:26 am
we are hearing the procedures, both of these situations, the states that if the organization is affected by one speaker, this is for a group of speakers. this was five minutes. i think to an extent we have strayed off of the entire thing. and there has been the submission of the materials, because i do not think that this is being followed the way that it should. we have limits as to when things come to us, and this is with this is not.
9:27 am
developers and people against development, they are just going to have to talk to this and try to get a handout on that day. and this will have less of an effect. the changes and the submissions to support -- i have some questions and we can discuss these later. the inconsistency drives me crazy. commissioner moore: there is the block of time for the public to speak. there are a number of people in the audience may not have the language ability or the practice, and they may need to
9:28 am
find somebody to speak for them. we have had this a lot lately, and i am and a proponent for continuing this. this is the right path for the development but this also sets the precedent, for what we are obligated to hear. i would actually be more interested in these proponents because there is a well-prepared case, for the people who make the case as this is positive or negative. the project presenters need the fire power, and they aspired to ask questions or oppose the project. i would ask if those groups,
9:29 am
with those five minutes, one person in the large group. we would hear about the ability of translation, to be more consistently working as chinese or cantonese. i think that we need to be more consistent, advertising that this opportunity exists. the voice is more consistent. and i believe with the commissioner on the timeliness of the delivery, or or against or in between, so that this will be part of the staff package. i am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on